It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Quadrennial Exploitation Of The Moronic Masses

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 09:53 AM
I created a thread called Senate Bill Aimed at Making Absentee Ballots from Overseas Count, to discuss voter fraud. Zero responses.

I created a thread called Health Care: John McCain vs Barack Obama designed to discuss the issue. Based upon the interest, I had about a half dozen other topical threads in mind; foreign policy, the economy, energy policy, etc.

I received 5 responses from other members, mostly saying "Attaboy". Then the thread died.

People don't want to discuss issues. They want to sling mud to make themselves and their candidate look superior. And it isn't limited to us lowly members, SO. Your own SuperMods are guilty. One called me and another member Neo-Cons just last week.

I predicted that this would happen when Politics was integrated back into ATS. Now political threads are exposed to those who are not interested in the issues, but only in sniping.

Maybe it was quieter when Politics was Politics. But surely that was to be foreseen- the election was still far away. As the election approaches, words get heated up. The decision to re-integrate was pre-mature, imo.

I foresee this as a harbinger of things to come. After the general election, politics will be for all intents and purposes eliminated as a dicussion topic on ATS. Just a guess of things to come...

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:47 AM

The Quadrennial Exploitation Of The Moronic Masses

OK this is a very colorful forum with many eccentric topics and posters, and interesting beliefs and views, there are a plethora of topics I visit every day, and one thing is for sure the posts to one another are are the same no matter what the topic,

It is just human nature, and no one is above it.

May I be excused for just a one liner?

" It's not just politics."

[edit on 113131p://bWednesday2008 by Stormdancer777]

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:02 AM

Originally posted by southern_Guardian

Obama and the bildenberg:

Which they then tried to link Hillary with when she was on top:

Those two threads were more conspiracy threads than political one IMO.

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:24 AM
How about making a separate elections forum?

That would make it - sorta - easy for the mods.

Easy to say, just avoid the election bull stuff on the main page, but some of the thread posters are quite good at putting up headlines that are completely misleading and 180 out from what was said.

They must be ex-mainstream media people....

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:24 AM
It crossed my mind to explore the past once again,

OLD POLITICAL CARTOONS.; Lenox Library Collection Begins with Jackson in 1824.

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:28 AM
Considering the OP and the mood/subject du jour, I am expecting a "Is Barack Obama Bigfoot" thread title any moment now!

[edit on 8/13/2008 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:37 AM

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Considering the OP and the mood/subject du jour, I am expecting a "Is Barack Obama Bigfoot" thread title any moment now!

[edit on 8/13/2008 by schrodingers dog]

I was looking for something more along the lines of "McCain and Obama, secret lovers?"

But hey, who knows?

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:53 AM

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Considering the OP and the mood/subject du jour, I am expecting a "Is Barack Obama Bigfoot" thread title any moment now!

[edit on 8/13/2008 by schrodingers dog]

One can only hope, come on, seriously, with out us morons how fun would this forum be?

[edit on 113131p://bWednesday2008 by Stormdancer777]

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 01:39 PM
What everybody need to understand (and I'm sure SO is beginning to) is that there aren't just government people on ATS, controlling people. There are people on ATS who are just normal individuals, like you or me, that are only posting to create controversy - to create entertainment. There are people that are so bored with their lives (either by being middle aged and a boring job or underaged and nothing left to do after school is out) that they will only post on ATS just to piss people off. Ignoring them won't do any good, because other people who are doing the same thing they're doing will continue to argue back-and-forth, not to get on each other's nerves, but to get on everybody else's nerves. Some people think posting topics on ATS is a "game", and the more replies and negative comments you get, the better. I'm sure some of these people laughed out loud when they saw SO's post, thinking to themselves, "Wow, we got to the admin! I better keep it up, and maybe I can get more response out of him!"

I'm just grateful that these types of people aren't too infested in other boards yet, but it seems evident to me that the worse it gets in this forum, the worse this "cancer" will be on other boards. It needs to be resolved somehow so that it doesn't continue elsewhere.

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 02:11 PM

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
What everybody need to understand (and I'm sure SO is beginning to) is that there aren't just government people on ATS, controlling people. There are people on ATS who are just normal individuals, like you or me, that are only posting to create controversy - to create entertainment.

I think many of us see that. But what you're describing, in action, is exactly what skepticism and rational discussion is supposed to be!

Look, progressive conversation doesn't happen when people all just agree with each other, or say, 'yeah thats interesting' and move on. It happens when people disagree with each other, and point out differences of viewpoint, alternative interpretations, logical inconsistencies, etc.

Look at the debate forum here. Perfect example. The best debates are where the debators are being truthful to the topic and the stance, not necessarily their own closely-held beliefs. That's intellectual honest -- putting the facts before the ego, or making the ego flexible enough not to have to only serve a single set of 'facts'. Entertaining without embracing: do it openly, and its not dishonest and can be quite valuable.

The 'danger' and 'distractions' come when that process is only half-heartedly embraced. There's no service to the truth by not following up and admitting weakness: taking a stance, trolling for contradiction, and then running away or ignoring the results instead of facing up to them. Dialectic snipers.

So, rather than 'divisiveness' being a 'cancer', a sickness, consider the possible motives behind it:

1) Service to the truth: If something's 'true', it possibly should be true whether I personally agree with it or not. By presenting, honestly, alternative interpretations and viewpoints, it gives others a chance to 'bounce their ball' off the wall, and see what kind of sound it makes. Perhaps even, the wall crumbles a bit. If we honestly admit to that, and notice where specific example has exposed weaknesses in idealogical stances, everyone learns. We can each take what's learned, reformulate, and move closer to true 'truthiness'.

2) Service to the ego: By taking a polarized stance, you can evoke reaction in others, validating the 'importance' of your expression to the ego. If you can get them to logically chase you, on a trail that you define, you have 'pwned' them. This, I believe, is what you're referring to in your post.

3) Service to the agenda: By pointing out every possible position of divisiveness, and expressing it, the waters are muddied. The volume of expression is skewed. Remember, truth-explanations of the world are fractal - each embraced 'settled' context creates (or exposes) newer micro-contexts within, new things to argue. By focusing the attention of the public, skewing the points of discussion to trivialities within a certain sphere, the larger context within which that discussion is contained gains validity. Volume volume volume - hey, must be something important there! (nb: sarcasm). This, I believe, is what the OP is referring to.

(PS: To get a little 'meta': please don't think I'm personally rebutting your post or saying you're wrong; I think you're pretty much on the money. See what I mean?)

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 03:03 PM
reply to post by Ian McLean

Excellently well said.

However, we have to account for the fact that not all participants are versed in debate or necessarily interested in achieving the goal of a intellectual honesty. There are those who are simply driven by a desire to be 'right.'

I suppose we could invoke, at least informally, a practice of identifying the flaws of posters contribution towards the end of 'mentoring' them into a new paradigm (for them) of discussion. But I believe that would come off as condescending, or at worst, discouraging their input. I will admit there have been occasions when I would have wanted an offending party to simply cease and desist, and I am tempted to 'ignore' them, but it is counterproductive to my purpose, which is to learn.

Unfortunately, many come here not to learn, but to teach, irrespective of their ability to do so, or even occasionally, of the facts themselves.

When matters wax political, this becomes exacerbated by the plethora of sources, mostly biased themselves, which are drawn upon to make their points.

It's a conundrum for sure, but not unresolvable I believe. Time will tell. I have too many high hopes for our little community of posters to abandon the possibilities of resolution and fruitful constructive exchanges of ideas.

The real question is, can we do anything to stem the tide of the forays into the offensive, brash, abrasive treatment that some bring to the table? Will any 'gentle' gravitation towards a more respectful and polite environment be met with mature acceptance, or will it be rejected outright as 'holier than thou' or 'who the #@$# do you think YOU are?' type responses?

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 04:20 PM
My first choice for president would be Hackworth - but he went and died on me.

My second choice and who I continue to support is - Wesley Clark.

Wesley Kanne Clark, KBE (born December 23, 1944) is a retired General of the United States Army. Clark was valedictorian of his class at West Point, was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to the University of Oxford where he obtained a degree in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (Philosophy, Politics & Economics), and later graduated from the Command and General Staff College with a master's degree in military science. He spent 34 years in the Army and the Department of Defense, receiving many military decorations, several honorary knighthoods, and a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Can anyone explain to me why Bush-lite is in the White House and this man is not president?

Can anyone explain to me how John Kerry "Bonesman" got the Democratic nomination - and Wesley Clark didn't?

I truly feel like I am fighting an invisible enemy. I've come to the conclusion the "Millennium Group" - - is more real then fictional.

I hope this is not off topic. Because the only reason I can see for what has happened is the Moronic Masses.

I see Wesley Clark is on the list for VP. I doubt that he is pliable enough to be put in that position.

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 04:22 PM
It is now after 5pm on the day after you started this thread.

And the tragedy of the whole situation is glaring us right in the face. So tried to express himself on what many of us consider an increasingly worrisome issue.

Looking at the threads initiated since the OP, the hope that this heartfelt appeal will somehow affect ATS in a positive way, is all but dead.

So's appeal to the membership was only heard by like minded individuals.

The haters and the baiters have as usual cried 1st Amendment and once again scorched the earth upon which ATS stands on in the process.
And why not? 90% of them will be gone after the election and it will be left to those that care about this community to mend it back up.

Having said that, I also believe that ATS from owner to newest member is so much bigger and better than any of these people. It will always be a community to be proud of. THEY are but a fly in our supper: A little off putting but without much consequence.

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 04:25 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

With all due respect, schrodingers dog, how can you come to that conclusion after some of the threads that have been created after this one, the D'08 forum?

Yes -there are crap threads - but there are also good threads.

Why ignore the good threads, and complain about the bad ones?

Everyone says "ohhh the political forums are a failure"

But i see no contributions to them from the majority of the people who complain.

If you dont like the political forums - ignore it.

I dont go to many of the forums on ATS because either i dont know jack about the issues contained within, or i dont give a damn about them.

Either way - im not starting threads to moan and groan about them.

So i ask again - if you're disappointed in the D'08 forum. Why?

Because you havent contributed anything to it to help the rest of us improve it.

[edit on 8/13/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 04:28 PM
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

The OP appealed to:

-*- mindless repetition of divisive spoon-fed political talking points

-*- patently false information about candidates presented as truth

-*- exaggerated disaster scenarios if one or the other is elected

-*- shameful racism

-*- shameful bastardization of candidate names

-*- shameful focus on personalities instead of issues

-*- pathetic fear mongering

-*- embarrassingly little focus on real, important, vital issues

I know there are good threads, I participate in many of them.

All I am saying that the hateful ones are as frequent as ever. And long term they will not, try as they might, taint ATS.

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 04:31 PM
reply to post by Ian McLean

Well, yeah. What I'm basically getting at is these people don't care about the truth. They will take a stance completely opposite to their beliefs if it provides entertainment for them and irritations for everybody else.

reply to post by schrodingers dog

They won't "taint" in the sense that they won't ever get rid of the good topics. If time goes on, though, and these topics keep going for years and years, eventually people will become desensitized to them, which may or may not be a good thing, depending on how you look at it.

[edit on 8/13/2008 by SonicInfinity]

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 04:33 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

threads created since the release of this one, that cover issues - and have been COMPLETELY ignored:

Thread #1

Thread #2

Thread #3

Thread #4

and thats just MY opinion on important viable threads.

They ALL cover "REAL" issues in this election - and every all but one has been ignored. (and the one that has recieved replies has not recieved many at all)

So as i see it

People have more fun whining
than they do actually contributing

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 04:37 PM
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

AW, you're arguing with yourself. I agree.
Nobody ever said that there are no good threads on this topic.
And most of know how little attention intelligent threads sometimes get.
We know, but that's not the issue.

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 04:41 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

I am willing to admit that i might be ... angry for the wrong reasons.

But as i see it - so far - there hasnt been any reasons for me not to be.

I see the massive support that this thread has recieved and i AGREE with it.

I agree that there are crap threads.

But if EVERYONE who starred and flagged THIS thread would actually contribute SOMETHING to the over all quality of THIS forum - then the problem wouldnt exist.

Im not arguing with myself - im aruing with those suffering from lethargic tendencies to contribute something because its too easy to complain about what others do.

"be the change you want to see"

instead of complaining about threads that say "Obama is bigfoot" or "mccain is a hippity dippity old man who farts dust"

contribute to the others

"voting records speak for themselves"
"a list of POTUS candidates"

those are two that i created. So as i see it

Either nobody thinks those are relavant talking points


Peopel are too lazy to contribute something meaningful

either way

too much complaining. Not enough contributing.

If you agree with me that quality threads exist in the D'08 forum

With all due respect to you, and i firmly mean that.

But - with all due respect - why arent you helping contribute to them?

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 04:56 PM
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

AW, I hope you are aware that you are fighting a "valid" war on the "wrong" continent.

As to contributing personally, not that I need to prove anything but:

obama/mccain space agenda

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in